So the people behind Hurt Locker are suing at least 5,000 people for downloading it through torrents. They have a list of IP addresses and are planning on using subpeonas to obtain the names from ISPs. They blame the lack of revenue the film received on pirates.
They plan on sending a letter offering to settle for $1,500 each, or take these people to court.
I have a lot of problems with this.
1. The movie sucked. I watched 20 minutes of it, saw a story going nowhere, bland characters, and turned it off. Fortunately I only lost $1 to RedBox.
2. Movies and music are one of the rare things you can pay for, be unhappy with, and have no chance of getting your money back. I can even buy a book at Borders, and take it back the following week with a receipt if I didn't like it. Once you unseal a dvd or cd, you can't take it back. If you make a good product, people will buy it and keep it.
3. I realize the offer to settle is legal. But it sounds like extortion.
4. In the age of WiFi, can they really prove you downloaded the movie yourself?
5. The movie didn't make any money because it wasn't advertised that well. So instead of going after the people in charge of advertising it, they are going after a bunch of broke college students and underage children.
6. Avatar proves downloading movies does not have a huge impact on revenue. It was the top downloaded movie, and still made bundles of cash.
Maybe in protest people should start mailing 100 pennies (the cost of a RedBox rental) to them. At least that way the money goes directly to them.
Or, I don't know, investigate who originally leaked the movie and prosecute their butts.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You might want to think through points like this more:
quote:6. Avatar proves downloading movies does not have a huge impact on revenue. It was the top downloaded movie, and still made bundles of cash.
That a blockbuster movie with huge special effects does not have theater sales hurt much, if at all, by people watching it in vastly-degraded form (not just not in 3D, but almost certainly cams) does not mean that a story-driven small-studio movie with perfect copies available won't have theater sales hurt much.
Now, I suspect that downloading wasn't the primary reason for bad performance, but you'll have to do a lot better than "Avatar still did well!" to prove downloading doesn't matter.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Two questions.
1. How were these IP addresses obtained, and was it done legitimately?
2. How does the potential loss of revenue translate to $1500+ per illegal download?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I recently downloaded a movie before it was released on DVD. I generally don't do that. I'd heard a lot of things about Kick-Ass, and I was intrigued. So I read the comic miniseries, and I was enthralled. So I downloaded the movie and watched it. Since it was a theater cam, neither the audio nor the video was very good, but I loved it. And when it comes out on DVD, I intend to buy it (not least because there's going to be extra footage.
It's nowhere near the first DVD I've bought after watching the movie online.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I recently downloaded a movie before it was released on DVD. I generally don't do that. I'd heard a lot of things about Kick-Ass, and I was intrigued. So I read the comic miniseries, and I was enthralled. So I downloaded the movie and watched it. Since it was a theater cam, neither the audio nor the video was very good, but I loved it. And when it comes out on DVD, I intend to buy it (not least because there's going to be extra footage.
It's nowhere near the first DVD I've bought after watching the movie online.
Yet another among countless examples of why you can't determine definitive financial loss from piracy. Doesn't make it automatically okay, of course, but it definitely complicates the issue to the point where there will be major flaws with pretty much any ruling that comes from these lawsuits if they go that far.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
What irks me about this is that it makes the customers out to be enemies.
Instead of working with the customers to find a method to get the materiel (movies, or music) to them in a way that works for both the companies and the customers, the companies are fighting tooth-and-nail against any reasonable compromise.
With music, for instance. I would gladly pay a monthly fee to get access to a legal torrent-like music site. I have been willing to do this for over 5 years. And I don't want my music files to expire or die out or be filled with legal restrictions. I want to buy a CDs worth of music files and have them be mine.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
1. The movie was great. I don't understand how you can say the story was 'going nowhere' and that the characters were 'bland'. On what planet was the lead character bland, anyway?
2. It's actually not very rare to pay for something, be unhappy about it, and not be able to get your money back, but even if it was-so what? You know the risks going in with the purchase price. If you don't like the price offered by something, why does 'steal it' become a viable option?
I don't like the price of sports cars, and I'm not sure I'd like to drive one day in and day out.
3. What do you think downloading the film illegally 'sounds like'?
4. Is this really an important point for you, or just a technicality? And yes, unless every single person on the list ran an unsecured wi-fi network, they can prove it, unless you're granting 'someone broke into my home while I wasn't there and downloaded it' as a defense.
5. The movie would have made more money had thousands of people gone to see it in theaters or purchased it or rented it legally, yes? There was a harm suffered by the people who produced and distributed this film because people went and saw it for free, yes? Or is someone entitled to be upset if they're stolen from only if it cripples them?
6. As fugu notes, this point is just plain silly. Avatar was not only a spectacular summer blockbuster style film with enormous special effects and sounds, it was 3D.
If you're going to support things like downloading torrents, man up and cop to it. Not just you, Stephan, but tons of people. You won't be ostracized anymore than people are ostracized for smuggling candy into a movie theater or speeding occasionally or nabbing a pen from work.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Two questions.
1. How were these IP addresses obtained, and was it done legitimately?
2. How does the potential loss of revenue translate to $1500+ per illegal download?
1. With torrent, it is extremely easy. Just join the swarm.
2. Lawyer fees.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What irks me about this is that it makes the customers out to be enemies.
Which customers? The ones who downloaded and viewed the film without paying anyone anywhere anything? I don't think 'customers' is the right word for what you're describing.
I certainly agree that prosecuting this sort of thing isn't the answer. It's not going to solve the problem. But just because they're doing something wrong in response doesn't mean no wrong occurred to begin with.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
While the studio has every right to go after the people that downloaded the movie illegally, I think it is counter productive.
If you do not want anyone to download your movie illegally, make a movie that people will want to buy. People may have downloaded Avatar, but when it came out people still went out and bought it. I will admit I downloaded it, but I saw it in the theater and the day it hit the store shelves I went out and bought the Blu-Ray.
I think it is interesting that they are suing people for downloading the movie illegally especially considering they are being accused of stealing the story in the first place:
[ June 01, 2010, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:While the studio has every right to go after the people that downloaded the movie illegally, I think it is counter productive. If you do not want anyone to download your movie illegally, make a movie that people will want to buy.
What you're basically saying is, "If you don't want me to steal from you, make it worthwhile for me not to steal from you. And if I decide to steal from you, don't get angry about it-you had your chance to stop me by making a better product."
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
What customer? Me!
I have money. I want a product. I don't want to be insulted by having my mp3 expire after I copy it three times, or be forced to listen to it on your clunky player, or be called a whiner when I say the quality is bad and that there is a better way.
I want to pay for a good, flexible, well-organized music system that lets me own the music I buy. Most companies don't want to let me have it because they can't be sure that they'll squeeze every possible cent out of me.
The Hurt Locker crew are attacking people and making enemies out of people who can become paying, satisfied customers. They are not trying to make it work. They are resorting to litigation. That's the problem I have with it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What customer? Me!
You're not a customer until you purchase something. You're certainly not a customer if you obtain something without reimbursing someone for it. What you're describing is potential customers.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: 4. Is this really an important point for you, or just a technicality? And yes, unless every single person on the list ran an unsecured wi-fi network, they can prove it, unless you're granting 'someone broke into my home while I wasn't there and downloaded it' as a defense.
You know, it does seem like all it would take to plant a reasonable seed of doubt is to claim that their wifi was not secure at the time. It's not like there's a legal obligation to protect your home network. If someone steals your car and starts running people down with it, you're not going to be held responsible because you left it unlocked.
Probably also wouldn't hurt to destroy the hard drive of the computer you used to download the movie before it's subpoenaed.
And that concludes this lesson of Piracy 101. Awwright.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
1. The movie was great. I don't understand how you can say the story was 'going nowhere' and that the characters were 'bland'. On what planet was the lead character bland, anyway?
--Differing opinions. My wife and father-in-law agreed with me though. I know Rotten Tomatoes has a lot of people disagreeing with us.
2. It's actually not very rare to pay for something, be unhappy about it, and not be able to get your money back, but even if it was-so what? You know the risks going in with the purchase price. If you don't like the price offered by something, why does 'steal it' become a viable option?
--Maybe a new car is harder to return, but used ones can be brought back within 30 days. But even new cars can be taken out for a test drive. Houses get inspected. Movies give you a 2 minute trailer showing just the good parts, with worthless critics. I still insist that copying is not stealing. The law doesn't even call it stealing.
3. What do you think downloading the film illegally 'sounds like'?
--I see your point with this one. But if you catch me comitting a crime, and say I have to pay you $1,500 not to turn me in, that just doesn't sound right.
4. Is this really an important point for you, or just a technicality? And yes, unless every single person on the list ran an unsecured wi-fi network, they can prove it, unless you're granting 'someone broke into my home while I wasn't there and downloaded it' as a defense.
--Pure curiosity. These people are being asked to pay $1,500 because a lawyer will cost them more then that. But would a lawyer be able to show that anyone could have done it on your network? I'm sure it isn't that hard for people to hack even secured WiFi networks.
5. The movie would have made more money had thousands of people gone to see it in theaters or purchased it or rented it legally, yes? There was a harm suffered by the people who produced and distributed this film because people went and saw it for free, yes? Or is someone entitled to be upset if they're stolen from only if it cripples them?
--But you can't prove that these people would have seen it in the theater. People go to the theater to see it on the big screen. I didn't even hear about the movie until it was nominated for an award, after I think it left the theaters. What about the money they lost to Redbox for only charging people $1 to see it?
6. As fugu notes, this point is just plain silly. Avatar was not only a spectacular summer blockbuster style film with enormous special effects and sounds, it was 3D.
--You and fugu do have a point there.
If you're going to support things like downloading torrents, man up and cop to it. Not just you, Stephan, but tons of people. You won't be ostracized anymore than people are ostracized for smuggling candy into a movie theater or speeding occasionally or nabbing a pen from work.
--I do support it. I think my post shows that. I have only downloaded Star Trek (after paying for it in the theater with the plan to buy it on dvd), because I have Netflix, RedBox and love the big screen at the theater. But I have downloaded countless tv shows. .
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:What customer? Me!
You're not a customer until you purchase something. You're certainly not a customer if you obtain something without reimbursing someone for it. What you're describing is potential customers.
That is true. I'm not excusing the act of stealing or downloading movies illegally, but they are going about it the wrong way.
In the gaming community there is DRM systems implemented in a lot of games. Assassin's Creed 2 is a single player game, yet the PC version requires you to have an internet connection the entire time you are playing. If you disconnect for even a second you lose all of your progress from the last save point. They do this to prevent people from downloading the game illegally.
They have every right to do so. I was turned off by this and did not buy the game on the PC for that very reason.
Any interest I had in seeing The Hurt Locker is completely gone. Not because I disagree with what they are doing, but because I do not like the attitude they have. Once you start berating people who disagree with your methods, you lose my interest, support, and money.
On a plus note, the producer belongs here on Hatrack. He would fit right in.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
You know, eventually, the buggy whip makers are just going to give up and stop fighting reality. Creative individuals are going to find ways to express their creativity without trying to hobble those who support them.
We live in an age where information is easily copyable and transferable. There is literally nothing these people can do to turn back the clock. They can make some people's lives miserable for a while, but it's a foregone conclusion how the story ends.
I wanted to rip a copy of an album I own to my computer. Something the CD companies would love to prevent -- which is as dumb as them trying to tell me what brand CD player I have to play it in. But I couldn't find it. It's in the house somewhere, but God only knows where. So I downloaded it. Big deal. I paid for the damned thing. It isn't like I'm getting something for nothing ("not that there's anything wrong with that").
Intellectual monopoly is going to have to change a lot. And the more we have abuses like this lawsuit and like Big Pharma and Disney extending patents and copyrights ad infinitum, the sooner their end will come.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: It's not like there's a legal obligation to protect your home network.
IANAL, but I think you may be wrong about that.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Really? Hmm. That's interesting if true.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If you do not want anyone to download your movie illegally, make a movie that people will want to buy.
Hummm... so it's my fault if I make an indie movie with an unusual and not-very marketable story? It's ok to steal that from me because you don't want to pay for it?
The problem in all of this is that people don't *think.* The studios and the downloaders- everybody's incredibly selfish.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Well to some extant if I don't have the money to pay for a movie ticket or the dvd me downloading it isn't actually hurting its income is it?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Really? Hmm. That's interesting if true.
I should be clearer. I don't think there's a requirement that you secure your wifi. Merely that any activity on it can be considered your responsibility (I believe there is caselaw to this effect), so failing to do so is not going to help you.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Well to some extant if I don't have the money to pay for a movie ticket or the dvd me downloading it isn't actually hurting its income is it?
You don't need to think hard to see what's wrong with what you said.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Well to some extant if I don't have the money to pay for a movie ticket or the dvd me downloading it isn't actually hurting its income is it?
Yes it is. Be clear on this: stealing has an effect. It may very well be that the hollywood system of pricing and distribution doesn't reach your segment of the market effectively (I know it doesn't reach mine, being both poor and living abroad), but that doesn't change the fact that it comes at a price, and you choose not to pay that price. The cases in which downloading may actually enhance recognition of a film and encourage it or a later film to commercial success are rare. While I am absolutely on board with the idea that the studio system is overly greedy and short-sighted, I have no allusions that this makes stealing ok. I steal, and it's not ok. If I am ever prosecuted, I will deserve it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
But copying isn't stealing, and US law agrees with me. US law puts it under copyright infringement. I don't agree with that, but I admit its the reality I live in. In Blayne's example, Hollywood has suffered no financial loss. If he wasn't going to spend money anyways, then no they haven't suffered a loss. It is not like stealing a car, where the original owner has lost something.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Basially says US law protects ISPs and business owners from people accessing things on the net, but home wifi networks have no clear cut law.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
In Blayne's example, some of the thousands of people participating in a torrent may not have bought the film legitimately anyway. But I might as well just sign away all my money and possessions and walk into theaters and trains and airplanes for free- as long as there is an empty seat left over, I'm not costing them anything by being there. I might as well go into restaurants and clean the plates of others for leftovers as well, since that food wasn't going to get eaten anyway. Also I should probably be allowed to live in apartments when there are no other tenants, and take clothes out of your dresser if you never wear them anyway- none of this costs anybody anything, after all.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: In Blayne's example, some of the thousands of people participating in a torrent may not have bought the film legitimately anyway. But I might as well just sign away all my money and possessions and walk into theaters and trains and airplanes for free- as long as there is an empty seat left over, I'm not costing them anything by being there. I might as well go into restaurants and clean the plates of others for leftovers as well, since that food wasn't going to get eaten anyway. Also I should probably be allowed to live in apartments when there are no other tenants, and take clothes out of your dresser if you never wear them anyway- none of this costs anybody anything, after all.
You very well could do these things - until you're asked to leave. There's that whole private property thing, you see. Not exactly the same thing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, not exactly. But I think the difference is key in telling us why we see one thing as wrong, and not the other. The more we can divorce our theft from a person or place, the less real it is. When books and plays and music were written in folios by hand, and the only protection against forgery and usurpation was reputation and honor, perhaps we could better rely on people to see that buying a fake took away from the artist, who perhaps very much needed the money. Studios don't exactly *need* the money in the same way, so the whole thing is indeed more complicated.
Endgame, I don't agree with the idea of taking from the pot without giving what you can. Certainly you cannot convince me that a reasonable contribution, even if it is not what the studio is asking for, is *nothing*.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My position is pretty simple:
If you can't afford it, or don't want to pay for it, you shouldn't get it.
There are a lot of things that I'd like, but I don't think are worth their price, so I didn't buy them. Thus, I don't have them.
I think the problem is that people are beginning to feel that media should be free. It's valuable enough to be desired, yet more and more people feel entitled to it without cost.
I'm all for easing access to ideas, inventions, creations, etc. But unless someone freely admits to creating just to create, with no economic incentive, I think it's stealing as much as anything. If I stole a painting, I'm not just stealing the paint and canvas. If I download a song, it's not just code flying across the internet.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Once upon a time, the only way to give something to someone was to lose it yourself. Or to spend a lot of time and energy and materials creating a reproduction. But we don't live at that time any more.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The problem with the "can't afford it, so not hurting anyone" thing is that it's self-judgement, and extremely open to bias. Are you really sure that, if there weren't a free option right here, you wouldn't be digging just a bit deeper, maybe dropping the second latte of the day?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Because we're all having a 'second latte'. KoM.
I haven't watched a new film since I saw Avatar in theatres. No movies have interested me enough to even steal them, except Moon, which I haven't seen yet. I, like Lisa, support movies I think are good quality. I'm tired of supporting movies that are crap. If the only way is to watch first and buy or donate later, then that's what I'll do.
I get that piracy is stealing, but I think this stunt is just that-- a stunt. These people are annoyed that their film flopped and are trying to get more money to fill in the gaps.
Piracy, as someone mentioned, is about convenience. No company has offered a system comparable in flexibity or ease of use to a torrent system. Yes, these systems are free but they're also oftne slower than a direct downloads and can be sketchy. A company offering download of movies in various file sizes and types for a reasonable cost will fill the niche. So far, nothing.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Can we all agree that in a generation or two this entire debate will be over, and people will stop pretending that it is possible to demand profit from digital material?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
If someone had bought the DVD after illegally downloading the film would that affect how successfully they can be sued?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Can we all agree that in a generation or two this entire debate will be over, and people will stop pretending that it is possible to demand profit from digital material?
QFT
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote: Can we all agree that in a generation or two this entire debate will be over, and people will stop pretending that it is possible to demand profit from digital material?
Heh, no. This won't be the case at all.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Can we all agree that in a generation or two this entire debate will be over, and people will stop pretending that it is possible to demand profit from digital material?
In a generation or two 'digital material' things will be so vastly different from the way they are now that the whole debate will be changed to something else
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Media companies have to get tired of tilting at windmills sometime.
If you disagree that this will be a moot point in, say, 30 years, where do you think we'll be? Will some sort of fool-proof anti-copying technology be produced, or will we be exactly where we are now? Impotent laws, lawsuits that provide nothing but chuckles for internet observers?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
The technology will have changed into some format we can't even begin to guess right now.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:If you disagree that this will be a moot point in, say, 30 years, where do you think we'll be? Will some sort of fool-proof anti-copying technology be produced, or will we be exactly where we are now? Impotent laws, lawsuits that provide nothing but chuckles for internet observers?
All that has to happen is for the level of convenience offered by media companies + the price of their offerings to be a more appealing package than the level of convenience offered by illegitimate means of sharing. For instance, there's no reason at all Netflix (the streaming model, especially) can't continue to be a viable model; the convenience is great, and the price is right. I could fairly easily download illegally pretty much everything I watch through it (and I'm not especially morally troubled by that; I've done it before), but I don't, because the actual cost to me would be higher (not even talking about lawsuits). What's more, there seem to be very large numbers of people like me (as Netflix is doing quite well).
Sure, some people will still file share, but that will increasingly be only those who wouldn't buy in the first place.
Or take another media type, books. One of the most successful ebook authors out there, who has recently signed a major publishing deal with Amazon, gives away all his books on his website. Yet his sales are very high in the Amazon Kindle store -- where he charges two to three dollars a book. He's even running an experiment right now where he encourages piracy of one of his books, to see what happens with the amazon sales. Now, he thinks that eventually ebooks will be free but supported by something like ads, so it'll be interesting to see what happens there. I suspect not; I foresee increasing use of the subscription model and very low individual pricing.
What's more, if we branch into other "digital material", I think you'll find that, for instance, people making applications have found a new renaissance from digital distribution, by the iphone store, by the video game console stores, by steam, et cetera. I don't see any reason that's going to go away.
So no, I'm pretty certain that people will continue 'demanding profit' from digital things.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Btw, I also disagree about the technology change thing. While the backend details might change, the simple fact is, to deliver things digitally, you need to move data around. There are only so many ways to do that. Certainly, increased data speeds will almost certainly make things streaming, but from a user perspective, it doesn't actually matter very much how that streaming takes place: you ask for the item, and the item starts playing (if we're talking movies, of course). While we're somewhat in a transitional period, pretty much everything we do now would be very recognizable to someone time traveling from not long after the invention of the internet (who used it, of course). They wouldn't necessarily have predicted it, but that's a much stronger standard -- they'd recognize the shape of it, from a practical standpoint. And just as the same debates of what the lowered marginal cost for distribution means have raged for over two and a half decades, just spilling over into new areas (the FSF was founded in 1985), they'll continue to be basically the same debates a few decades hence (though they may be largely settled from a practical perspective as I outline in my previous post).
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The problem with no profit from digital things is it still costs money for all those things. For example, an ebook. Someone still has to write that book, an editor still has to edit it, promoters still do their thing. The only way a quality e-book is cheaper is the cost of paper, which really isn't that high. If you get rid of editors and publishing houses, you lose the quality control aspect. Every wannabe writer can put a book out there and how do you separate the crap from the stuff worth reading? For a movie, you still have actors, special affects, costuming, all that stuff to pay for. The form might be easily steal-able, but that is still tons of workers times and effort. If you can't make a profit, quality will drop.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:The only way a quality e-book is cheaper is the cost of paper, which really isn't that high.
This isn't true. The principal costs of a physical book are the return policy and the shelf space (granted, amazon's reduced that second quantity for books ordered online), which are over twice the cost of printing, but also go away with ebooks -- combined with printing, they're almost a third the cost of a book. What's more, almost all of the remaining costs are fixed costs, not marginal costs, and the ones that are marginal costs, such as royalties, are usually handled (appropriately) as a percentage. Lowering the price will increase sales (drastically), as has been proven time and time again (including in the book industry), allowing the fixed costs to be covered at a much lower price, despite the total cost of making the book not having decreased by more than about a third.
Now, some people disagree with the last sentence. They are wrong. Reading is at an all-time high, but books are so expensive that a lot of people substitute other things. Books read per capita isn't anywhere near an all-time high. There is a huge amount of capacity for book reading that is not happening because prices are more than people want to pay.
If you disagree, ask yourself this: if the number of books sold is basically constant regardless of price, why is the price of hard copy books almost always set at only enough to make a small profit for each part of the chain? Surely, if the number of books sold wouldn't change, the publisher or somebody could just charge a little more and make a lot more profit?
Your larger point is relevant: at some point, creators need to make money, if they are going to keep creating at high quality, especially in certain high-capital industries. Now, that doesn't mean they'll make it on digital sales to consumers, but I think that will be a part of it.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Have to chime in and add that I too like Netflix streaming media business model, especially coupled with things like the Media Center plugin. Suddenly, the need to have all your media physically on your shelf or hard drive disappears if you can watch it anytime you want streaming, especially for ~$9/month for unlimited. And I don't even do the DVD service. And as long as their streaming media collection continues to grow to include more and more items, my satisfaction in and loyalty to their business model will only increase.
All other media companies should take a lesson from that. The per-movie/tv show/song charges (like Amazon unbox or ITunes) seems so antiquated now. Obviously, still needed for consuming media on portable devices, but I'm sure a way can be found to make that viable as well, eventually.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Suddenly, the need to have all your media physically on your shelf or hard drive disappears if you can watch it anytime you want streaming, especially for ~$9/month for unlimited.
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Can we all agree that in a generation or two this entire debate will be over, and people will stop pretending that it is possible to demand profit from digital material?
I'm not arguing either way, but absolutely NO, we cannot all agree to this.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If you do not want anyone to download your movie illegally, make a movie that people will want to buy.
Hummm... so it's my fault if I make an indie movie with an unusual and not-very marketable story? It's ok to steal that from me because you don't want to pay for it?
The problem in all of this is that people don't *think.* The studios and the downloaders- everybody's incredibly selfish.
You are missing my point. I never said it was ok. If you look at some Indie films like Blair Witch and Paranormal, (Well I consider them indie films) they made HUGE amounts of money. Why? Because people wanted to watch them.
Look at Blizzard Entertainment. You never see any form of DRM on their games. The reason? People WANT to buy their games. They work hard on them and they make a quality product that everyone wants. I could easily download Starcraft 2, but I went down to my local Gamestop and plopped $100 down for the Collectors Edition.
I'm not saying it is RIGHT, but the situation is only going to get worse if they keep releasing the same crap that they have been the past few years.
One way to alleviate the problem would be to offer theatrical releases through an internet stream. They could show at certain times and you could charge $20 or more per movie. I think people would be more willing to pay for movies if they didn't have to drive all the way down to the theatre, spend $42 on popcorn and a soda, and put up with rude people and children.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Look at Blizzard Entertainment. You never see any form of DRM on their games. The reason? People WANT to buy their games. They work hard on them and they make a quality product that everyone wants. I could easily download Starcraft 2, but I went down to my local Gamestop and plopped $100 down for the Collectors Edition.
A bit of a tangent, but: Starcraft 2 will require a continuous internet connection for the single player campaign, and the multiplayer game will not support LAN connections.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If you do not want anyone to download your movie illegally, make a movie that people will want to buy.
Hummm... so it's my fault if I make an indie movie with an unusual and not-very marketable story? It's ok to steal that from me because you don't want to pay for it?
The problem in all of this is that people don't *think.* The studios and the downloaders- everybody's incredibly selfish.
You are missing my point. I never said it was ok. If you look at some Indie films like Blair Witch and Paranormal, (Well I consider them indie films) they made HUGE amounts of money. Why? Because people wanted to watch them.
Look at Blizzard Entertainment. You never see any form of DRM on their games. The reason? People WANT to buy their games. They work hard on them and they make a quality product that everyone wants. I could easily download Starcraft 2, but I went down to my local Gamestop and plopped $100 down for the Collectors Edition.
I'm not saying it is RIGHT, but the situation is only going to get worse if they keep releasing the same crap that they have been the past few years.
One way to alleviate the problem would be to offer theatrical releases through an internet stream. They could show at certain times and you could charge $20 or more per movie. I think people would be more willing to pay for movies if they didn't have to drive all the way down to the theatre, spend $42 on popcorn and a soda, and put up with rude people and children.
That's silly, why wouldn't I just wait for the DVD to come out if I'm already watching it at home and not on the big screen of a theater?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Indeed. But I bet a lot of people would pay an additional five to ten dollars a month on their subscription to be able to watch new-release movies say, one month after they entered theaters (instead of waiting until DVDs came out).
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
If I want to see a movie, the size of the screen isn't always a factor to me. Big films such as Avatar, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings have to be seen in the theater to get the full experience.(in my opinion) Films like Superbad, Kick Ass, Sex and The City, (due to my wife) and most comedies or dramas do not exactly warrant a huge screen with Klipsch speakers. I'd rather watch it while laying on my couch.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Indeed. But I bet a lot of people would pay an additional five to ten dollars a month on their subscription to be able to watch new-release movies say, one month after they entered theaters (instead of waiting until DVDs came out).
Oh, five to ten a month? Sure, I'd go along with that.
That's completely different from $20 per movie, which was the situation I was responding to.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Sort of home version of the hotel industry's in-room programming where the movies still in theater (or just out) are available....yeah, I'd go for that too. I like the subscription model rather than the per-item model.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If you do not want anyone to download your movie illegally, make a movie that people will want to buy.
Hummm... so it's my fault if I make an indie movie with an unusual and not-very marketable story? It's ok to steal that from me because you don't want to pay for it?
The problem in all of this is that people don't *think.* The studios and the downloaders- everybody's incredibly selfish.
You are missing my point. I never said it was ok. If you look at some Indie films like Blair Witch and Paranormal, (Well I consider them indie films) they made HUGE amounts of money. Why? Because people wanted to watch them.
Sorry, I don't think I missed your point. Those movies made lots of money because they attracted investors. There was not much about them that guarenteed their success any other way. There are plenty of examples of films that are hugely popular that didn't make back their modest budgets. People want to watch office space, but it took that film years in VHS and DVD release to break even, because it didn't have an advertising budget.
The problem with your premise is just that- the money required to *make* people want to see a film has to be worth it. For some movies it just isn't- some movies are very, very good, and do not have good profit potential. When and where people started believing that films existed for the purposes of making money and not art I am not sure, but it's sad to see. There is a film business, but film is not itself a business. You do not have a right to, nor should you expect, anything that you don't desperately want to be free. So hanging that responsibility on the filmmakers is silly, fullstop. Nobody has a responsibility to be popular- if you don't defend these people's rights, then you risk losing what they have to give.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
Intellectual monopoly is going to have to change a lot. And the more we have abuses like this lawsuit and like Big Pharma and Disney extending patents and copyrights ad infinitum, the sooner their end will come.
It sounds to me like you're in disagreement with Ayn Rand. IIRC, Howard Roark, in her eyes, was right to commit his act of terrorism.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by IanO: Sort of home version of the hotel industry's in-room programming where the movies still in theater (or just out) are available....yeah, I'd go for that too. I like the subscription model rather than the per-item model.
HBO costs me, I think, $12 a month extra. Each individual new release is $5 On Demand. We rent two new movies a month and watch a ton once they hit HBO. I'd be a happy camper if HBO got them a little faster than they do now. Or if I replaced HBO with a different channel that gets movies fast.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I'd argue all of your suggestions for altered payment plans are actually evidence that things are going to radically change in the coming decades.
All of your suggestions are for lower prices and faster releases. Why are you able to demand these things? Because it's all digital media. While theatre ticket prices have a great deal more room to maneuver - because theatres have something to sell other than the movie - HBO and DVDs have to reckon with the simple fact that there is an effectively infinite supply of their product. No scarcity, no value. This is the future, and all the moralizing in the world won't stop it. History marches on, and its soundtrack is a pirated copy of Dragon Forces' Through the Fire and Flames.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Who said nothing would radically change? I've said the technology wouldn't radically change, and that companies would still make profits from digital distribution. Of course the nature of digital distribution will change (and is changing) the game, with much greater immediacy and much lower marginal costs.
It is rather a larger step to go from "change" to "nobody at all will be able to make profit from digital distribution", which is the claim you've been making. You seem to be basing your position on some sort of vision of the future rather than looking at the evidence, where you'll see that while some sorts of digital distribution are beleaguered, others are doing quite well (despite the ease of illegal file sharing).
[ June 03, 2010, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:It is rather a larger step to go from "change" to "nobody at all will be able to make profit from digital distribution", which is the claim you've been making.
Well, if you're going to use quotation marks, you might as well copy/paste what I actually said. I said no one would be able to demand payment for digital material. There will always be people that will want to buy physical items; I, for one, despise reading books on computer screens (even high-end e-book readers) and will always always buy books, even if i can get them for free from gigapedia.
What I mean is, digital material will be viewed in a way something akin to water. Yes, people will always buy and sell bottled water, but their kitchen tap is only a few feet away. The analogy is not perfect, which is why I haven't brought it up before, but does it help you see what I'm getting at?
Digital material will always be profitable, but the profit will come from the physical material is is delivered on. The actual information itself? Come on guys, everything is over but the crying: this sort of material absolutely resists the concept of private property.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Digital material will always be profitable, but the profit will come from the physical material is is delivered on.
So your assertion is that there will be some master subscription price as part of internet access? If not, what physical material are you referring to?
And the idea remains extremely unlikely. People's media consumption patterns are too varied. While I fully expect subscription models to be common, complete bundling will not be how it will happen.
(edit: and it still is backing off from "stop pretending that it is possible to demand profit from digital material", plus being inconsistent with several models that are working successfully in the face of illegal downloading).
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:So your assertion is that there will be some master subscription price as part of internet access? If not, what physical material are you referring to?
I'm not referring to any sort of internet subscription. I mean books, CDs, and DVDs - the actual physical items themselves. There will always be people who prefer physical books that they can put on a shelf, dog-ear and note up. Hipsters will always want to impress people with their CD collections. Box set DVDs will always look pretty on shelves. The actual physical items are what people will pay for, not the information contained in them; just like no one actually pays for the water inside a bottle -- rather, they pay for the convenience and the alleged purity.
And, again, I said people will stop demanding profit from digital material. I mean there will be no more of these silly lawsuits.
These are my concrete predictions: over the course of the next few decades, let's say 30 or 40 years, DVD & CD sales will dwindle, but still be worth producing for the above reasons. Musicians will earn a far greater proportion of their income from live concerts than they do now. Movie theatres will continue to be popular, probably popular enough to support gimmicky blockbusters like Avatar 3-D. Broadcast and cable television budgets will also dwindle, killing off a lot of mid-range quality programing. I can't make predictions for the book publishing industry because I have no idea how many people share my hate of screen reading.
Basically, current trends wildly magnified. Sooner or later, people will realize that there is an effectively limitless supply of digital material, and that very lack of scarcity means old rules of private property simply do not apply to it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So, are you or are you not arguing that nobody will pay for downloaded movies and music? That's the central area of contention, which you did not deal with directly in that post. You seem to imply it, though.
Given the long history of lawsuits for all sorts of reasons relating to distribution of content, dating back a couple of thousand years, I am entirely comfortable predicting that there will still be lawsuits about unauthorized distribution in 30 or 40 years. Certain aspects of copyright law might relax, but it will remain around in some form; indeed, it will become increasingly important.
And there are a lot of people who will be happy to hear they don't pay water bills. While there are higher costs for bottled water associated with convenience and such, people do pay for water, by how much they use. If you want to use an analogy like that, I'd try for something a little better (or realize that the lack of truly analogous products suggests that perhaps, just perhaps, the future won't be like you imagine).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Savor the irony.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Look at Blizzard Entertainment. You never see any form of DRM on their games. The reason? People WANT to buy their games. They work hard on them and they make a quality product that everyone wants. I could easily download Starcraft 2, but I went down to my local Gamestop and plopped $100 down for the Collectors Edition.
Geraine: This is wrong. Blizzard's games are coupled inherently with anti-piracy measures related to online connectivity. You couldn't 'easily download' a copy of SC2 and expect to have accessibility to Bnet, which would render the exercise mostly moot. You couldn't even play the single player campaign until a workaround came for constant connectivity. It would be like trying to pirate WoW. Client = easy. Access to server = hard.
Any and all Blizzard games where connectivity isn't required? Thieved to hell and back, specifically BECAUSE people wanted to play them. Even ones from the early days of 0-days and romz (Diablo II, etc).
Piracy has grown to the point where it is actually choking the life out of indie game-making.
quote:So, are you or are you not arguing that nobody will pay for downloaded movies and music? That's the central area of contention, which you did not deal with directly in that post. You seem to imply it, though.
I suppose I'm not being as clear as I'd like.
Digital information will cease to be seen as private property. This is a radical change. It will be the first time in human history that a product of labor will not fall under the category of private property.
This is the reason that the water analogy fails, because digital information is unique - though I'd point out that hydro bills, in this analogy, would be equivalent to ISP fees.
quote:I am entirely comfortable predicting that there will still be lawsuits about unauthorized distribution in 30 or 40 years.
I'm saying there won't be any such thing as "unauthorized distribution."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I'm saying there won't be any such thing as "unauthorized distribution."
Prepare to be wrong Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think there will be some adjustment period, but when quality drops, people will realize that you get what you pay for and paying for entertainment will come back in some form. The exact nature, I don't know, but in order to get high quality, people need to be paid- even in fields that are about love. For example, I love to write. If I have no hope of making money, I'll still write, but I probably would drop the crit partners and just write until I am happy, so lower quality.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
Intellectual monopoly is going to have to change a lot. And the more we have abuses like this lawsuit and like Big Pharma and Disney extending patents and copyrights ad infinitum, the sooner their end will come.
It sounds to me like you're in disagreement with Ayn Rand. IIRC, Howard Roark, in her eyes, was right to commit his act of terrorism.
I absolutely disagree with Rand about intellectual monopoly. Gasp! How shocking!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote: Can we all agree that in a generation or two this entire debate will be over, and people will stop pretending that it is possible to demand profit from digital material?
Heh, no. This won't be the case at all.
QFT
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: I'm saying there won't be any such thing as "unauthorized distribution."
New regulatory measures (but definitely not what we have now) might keep data from ending up that way, so I'm not exactly confident that's where this will go.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
After re-reading foust's deal over carefully, I wanna change my position to "I'm not confident that's where this will go" to a much less ambiguous "That is totally not gonna happen, sorry"
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
Intellectual monopoly is going to have to change a lot. And the more we have abuses like this lawsuit and like Big Pharma and Disney extending patents and copyrights ad infinitum, the sooner their end will come.
It sounds to me like you're in disagreement with Ayn Rand. IIRC, Howard Roark, in her eyes, was right to commit his act of terrorism.
I absolutely disagree with Rand about intellectual monopoly. Gasp! How shocking!
I was asking to get some sense of your whys and wherefores. You don't have to be nasty or sarcastic.
Why DO you disagree with her? Isn't intellectual property the largest part of the foundation of Objectivism? Don't you think she'd eviscerate your argument, assuming she were still around?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Foust: I'm saying there won't be any such thing as "unauthorized distribution."
New regulatory measures (but definitely not what we have now) might keep data from ending up that way, so I'm not exactly confident that's where this will go.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)